1
The who, where and why of choosing suboptimal foods: consequences for
1
tackling food waste in store
2
Jessica Aschemann-Witzel1*, Tobias Otterbring1, Ilona E. de Hooge2, Anne Normann2, 3
Harald Rohm4, Valérie L. Almli5, Marije Oostindjer6 4
1 MAPP Centre, Aarhus University, Fuglesangsalle 4, 8210 Aarhus V, Denmark 5
[email protected], [email protected] 6
2 Department of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 7
8130, 6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands [email protected] 8
3 SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden – Food and Bioscience, Box 5401, SE-402 29, 9
Gothenburg, Sweden [email protected] 10
4 Chair of Food Engineering, Technische Universität Dresden, 01062 Dresden, Germany 11
5 Nofima AS, Postboks 210, NO-1431 Ås, Norway [email protected] 13
6 Faculty of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life 14
Sciences, P.O. Box 5003, 1432 Ås, Norway, [email protected] 15
* Corresponding author 16
Acknowledgement: The research was performed in the framework of the SUSFOOD ERA- 17
Net 'COSUS' project (see https://cosus.nmbu.no/). The authors declare no conflict of interest.
18 19
2 Abstract
20
Food stores have begun to tackle food waste at the point of sale. They do so by selling 21
‘suboptimal’ food before it is wasted, typically with a price reduction. However, efficiency of 22
this food waste avoidance action can be improved by knowing for which product category, 23
which store type, which accompanying communication, and which consumer characteristic this 24
action works best. This study uses an experimental online survey conducted in five North 25
western European countries to investigate the effect of communication appealing to either self- 26
versus others-centred motives in either supermarkets or farmers’ markets, for packaged and for 27
fresh food. It is found that both messages – the one communicating budget saving and the other 28
an emotional appeal - are effective in increasing choice likelihood. Store type affects choice 29
likelihood of suboptimal packaged, while others-centred values and trust in the store affects 30
choice likelihood for suboptimal fresh food. Communication improves quality perception of 31
suboptimal fresh food. Findings imply that fresh suboptimal foods lend themselves more to be 32
promoted with others-centred messages, or to be targeted at consumers with others-centred 33
values. In order to tackle food waste in the store, accompanying communication efforts should 34
in particular be focused on attempting to sell suboptimal fresh food.
35 36
Keywords: Food waste; Suboptimal food; Communication; Quality perception; Value 37
orientation; Store type 38
39
3 Highlights
40
• Selling suboptimal food in store can reduce food waste at the retailer 41
• Experimental survey explored the role of communication, store type, and category 42
• Communication increases likelihood of choice for suboptimal food 43
• Store type plays a role for packaged, but others-centred values and trust for fresh 44
• Communication efforts should focus on promoting sales of fresh suboptimal food 45
46
4 1. Introduction
47
Food waste has become a topic of societal concern and research focus in the past decade. The 48
Food and Agriculture Organisation states that about third of world´s food is wasted {FAO 2011 49
#49}. There is an increasing body of research dedicated to the topic, looking both at the 50
consumer (e.g. {Block 2016 #616}{Delley 2017 #611}{Visschers 2016 #6}) and the retail 51
level (e.g. {Filimonau 2017 #614}{Cicatiello 2017 #613}{Eriksson 2017 #460}). In addition, 52
there is also a growing research stream exploring food waste from a system-perspective (e.g.
53
{Priefer 2016 #425}{Grainger 2018 #612}{Henz 2017 #615}{Vilariño 2017 #497}).Much 54
research has also been dedicated to quantifying food loss and waste {Edjabou 2016 55
#430}{Parfitt 2010 #77}{Kummu 2012 #68}{Alexander 2017 #441}{Xue 2017 #617}.
56
Statistics, measurements and even the definition of food waste varies according to the source 57
one takes into account {Bellemare 2017 #522}. However, it is rarely disputed that lowering 58
food waste levels is beneficial for environmental {Scherhaufer 2018 #792}, social and 59
economic reasons. Consequently, food waste is one of the aims in the UN sustainable 60
development goals {UN 2015 #322}.
61
Food waste is caused by a diverse set of interrelated factors {Hebrok 2017 #427}{Quested 62
2013 #650} and it originates in particular from the downstream end of the supply chain {Parfitt 63
2010 #77}. Causes of food waste are for example rooted in decisions taken by the food supply 64
chain actors on issues such as cosmetic standards {Hooge 2018 #651}{Loebnitz 2015 #354}, 65
packaging {Williams 2012 #583}{White 2016 #582}, labelling {van Boxstael 2014 #747}, 66
pricing tactics {Mallinson 2016 #570}{Porpino 2015 #537}{Koivupuro 2012 #12} or take- 67
back agreements in supplier-retailer relationship {Eriksson 2017 #460}. At the consumer, food 68
waste often stems from the trade-offs that consumers perceive between the different food- 69
related goals in their daily life {Aschemann-Witzel 2015 #554}, and occur at multiple stages 70
5 of the consumer´s interaction with food {Block 2016 #616}{Richter 2018 #774}{Hebrok 2017 71
#427}.
72
A lot of media focus has been given to the food waste that is caused in the supermarket.
73
Retailers have consequently started to address the issue as part of corporate social responsibility 74
efforts, or allowed their waste streams to be explored {Cicatiello 2017 #613}{Eriksson 2012 75
#436}{Teller 2018 #784}. Retailers have begun to strike agreements for donating unsold food 76
to food banks {Caraher 2014 #748}, or giving shelf space to new packaging formats that are 77
designed to reduce food waste (for example, easy to be emptied, or smaller units targeted to 78
single households {Aschemann-Witzel 2017 #380}.
79
Price strategies play a large and potentially beneficial role in supermarket´s efforts to tackle 80
food waste in store. Price reduction is of widespread application for food waste avoidance in 81
supermarkets {Kulikovskaja 2017 #468}. It is used for food items nearing the expiration date 82
– called expiration date-based pricing {Theotokis 2012 #359} - or for products slightly 83
damaged or starting to look unappealing. Such foods are also called ‘suboptimal foods’, and 84
suboptimal food is defined as food which is edible, but perceived as deviating from normal or 85
optimal food, as for example in appearance or because the food approaches the date label 86
{Hooge 2017 #8}. The advantage of price reduction for suboptimal food is that food waste in 87
the store is reduced - which incidentally also improves employee satisfaction {Gruber 2016 88
#324} - while no additional resources need to be used to transport the food to another 89
alternative store {Aschemann-Witzel 2017 #380}. Thus, the food waste is avoided at its source.
90
This policy can thus be regarded as particularly beneficial in terms of the food waste hierarchy 91
{Papargyropoulou 2014 #793}.
92
However, price reduction for suboptimal food requires additional personnel resources 93
{Aschemann-Witzel 2017 #433}. In addition, given that product characteristics or pricing 94
6 strategies impacts store image {Hartman 2005 #771}{Chang 2014 #770}, retailers might be 95
concerned about how price reductions and the display of suboptimal and potentially ‘shabby’
96
foods might affect quality perception and/or store image. Therefore, greater in-depth 97
knowledge is needed to alleviate these concerns, and to explore how to apply the action of 98
offering price-reduced suboptimal food to combat food waste most efficiently.
99
On this background, the goal of the current study was firstly, to assess the effect of different 100
types of additional communication to support the choice of suboptimal price-reduced food, as 101
well as to explore how choice differs depending on store type, product category, and consumer 102
characteristics. The communication appealed to either self-centred or others-centred motives, 103
assuming that supermarkets might either appeal to consumers own interest in saving money, 104
or highlight to consumers that they are promoting a ‘good cause’, when accompanying price- 105
reduced suboptimal food with additional communication. The store type was either a 106
supermarket or a farmer’s market context, as it was expected that consumers might react 107
differently in these store types. Secondly, the goal of the study was to explore how different 108
communication or store type context might influence consumer’s subjective product quality 109
perception. The study contributes to understanding consumer behaviour and perception at the 110
point of sale when faced with suboptimal foods reduced in price, allowing to improve business 111
decisions on effective actions to tackling food waste.
112 113
1.1 Consumer´s motives when responding to responsible marketing in retail 114
When consumers buy food in retail, the motives connected to why they purchase the item in 115
question which drive choice {Steptoe 1995 #773}{Sautron 2015 #772}. For example, a snack 116
might be bought for satiety, a chocolate for hedonic reasons, and a wine to be served to guests 117
for status reasons. Others-centred motives come into play when ethical foods are concerned, 118
7 e.g. caring for the environment through choosing eco-labelled food {van Loo 2015 #778} or 119
for marginalised small farmers when selecting fair trade-labelled food {O'Connor 2017 #779}.
120
Research has been looking into the drivers of choice of ethical food, and oftentimes it is found 121
that both self- and others-centred motives play a role {Nguyen 2016 #776}{Hughner 2007 122
#777}. In responsible marketing covering ‘ethical’ or ‘green’ food or ‘cause-related’ marketing 123
{Mendini 2018 #780}, communication might often voice either/or self- and others-centred 124
reasons to buy, in order to appeal to the respective motives. Communication makes the 125
respective motive more salient at the point of decision. If communication space is restricted, it 126
is important to know which is the most important ‘unique selling point’ or which motive is 127
most relevant for which segment of consumer {Grunert 2019 #794}.
128
With regard to suboptimal food, consumers have been found to be hardly willing to choose 129
such imperfect food unless the price is reduced {Hooge 2017 #8}, and this is not surprising 130
given consumers assess benefit versus cost during purchase {Aschemann-Witzel 2018 #781}.
131
The budget saving achieved through the price reduction of the item appears thus is an important 132
self-centred motive. However, suboptimal food is also communicated as a food avoidance 133
action. This can be regarded as a cause-related marketing example {Theotokis 2012 #359}.
134
Indeed, it has been found that consumers think food waste is highly unethical {Richter 2018 135
#774}. Thus, the food waste avoidance can be an important others-centred motive.
136
Interestingly, some initiatives against food waste use a rather emotional approach to portraying 137
suboptimal food, therewith creating a feeling of pity and sympathy: One can see that in for 138
example the famous Intermarché campaign for the ‘inglorious fruit and vegetables’, where 139
anthropomorphism is used, while the company Imperfect is depicting the items as underdogs 140
or anti-heroes {Aschemann-Witzel 2017 #380}. These appeals are about contributing to a good 141
cause or helping a ‘person’, thus essentially an others-centred motive. On this background, we 142
hypothesize the following:
143
8 H1: Communication focused on the budget saving effect and/or an emotional appeal has a 144
stronger effect on likelihood of choice of suboptimal food reduced in price, compared to a 145
mere price-reduction.
146
H2: Consumers characterized by others-centred values react more strongly to the message with 147
an emotional appeal, and consumers characterized by self centred values react more strongly 148
to the communication on the budget saving effect.
149 150
1.2 The role of the store context and trust for consumer choice and product perception 151
It is long known that the store image and store type might influence consumer expectation and 152
perception {Grewal 1998 #782}. Different types of store formats such as e.g. discounters 153
versus supermarkets have a different store price image {Chang 2014 #770}. The type of store 154
determines store equity, and equity is defined as the ‘differential effect of store knowledge on 155
customer response to the marketing activities of the store’ ({Hartman 2005 #771}, p. 1112).
156
Both a store with a lower quality image, as well as a reduced price can influence quality 157
perception as well as perceived value, and ultimately purchase intent, via unfavourable 158
negative quality inferences {Grewal 1998 #782}.
159
However, a store type that enjoys a favourable image might more easily convince consumers 160
to accept and choose price-reduced suboptimal food. Especially when the quality of the 161
suboptimal food cannot be assessed before purchase, consumers need to trust the store in order 162
to believe that the food is fine enough to be eaten. A general favourable image towards a 163
specific store type might increase the likelihood that consumers make favourable inferences 164
from the store type to the product quality. A favourable image of a store might be furthered by 165
consumers seeing that the store engages in responsible business practices, as for example 166
fighting food waste {Lombart 2014 #361}. This might hold true in particular for waste - the 167
9 feeling of discomfort about a waste incident can have negative consequences for the brand 168
involved {van Herpen 2019 #797}. Turning this around, one can assume that learning about 169
the supermarket´s efforts in avoiding food waste incidents can create a positive feeling that has 170
positive consequences for the store.
171
Most suboptimal food is offered in retail, but the increasingly popular direct sales of local food 172
in farmers markets enjoys a favourable image {Feldmann 2015 #783}{Yu 2017 #785}. In 173
addition, food categories which are often wasted – as fruit and vegetables as well as bakery 174
products {Hebrok 2017 #427}{Schanes 2018 #795}{Priefer 2016 #425} – can be found sold 175
on farmers markets in particular. Farmers markets can thus be a potentially important point of 176
sale for suboptimal food, as well as a case to study the potential differential effect of store type.
177
On this background, we hypothesize the following:
178
H3: Consumers choose suboptimal food offered at reduced price more likely at the store type 179
of the farmers market compared to the supermarket.
180
H4: Consumers express greater likelihood of choice for suboptimal food reduced in price 181
when the store in which consumers are told to imagine shopping is assessed with a high degree 182
of trust.
183
As outlined above, both communication and store type can be expected to influence quality 184
perception of products offered in the store of accompanied by the communication. Thus, we 185
hypothesize:
186
H5: The context – both communication and store type – favourably improves perceived 187
dimensions of product quality perception.
188 189
2. Material and methods 190
10 The research design consisted of a survey experiment studying the effect of product category, 191
communication, and store type on first, choice likelihood for price-reduced suboptimal food 192
and second, on the perceived quality dimensions of the food. The sample, the design of 193
experiment including choice of experimental stimuli, and the survey measures are explained in 194
the following.
195 196
2.1 Sample 197
A sample of 3114 consumers of the representative online panel of a market research agency 198
(the company Userneeds, member of ESOMAR) was surveyed in May 2017. The study was 199
conducted in the five countries Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Denmark.
200
Respondents were sampled using quotas for age, gender and region of residence in each 201
country. Respondents who used less than the mean interview duration minus two standard 202
deviations were excluded from analysis under the assumption that it is an unrealistically short 203
duration, resulting in a final sample of 3098 (see table 1 for a sample characterization).
204
Insert table 1 here 205
206
2.2 Experimental design and stimuli 207
Respondents were randomly allocated to the following experimental groups: 2 product 208
categories x 3 communication variants (including a control with no communication) x 2 store 209
type, resulting in 12 experimental groups (see table 2 for the experimental design).
210
Insert table 2 here 211
2.2.1 Product categories and images 212
11 The product categories were firstly, fresh food which shows sub-optimality in terms of 213
appearance and represented by potato, and secondly, packaged food which shows sub- 214
optimality in terms of the date or the age of the product, and represented by bread. These two 215
categories were chosen because fruit and vegetables as well as bakery products make up the 216
largest share among household food waste {Cicatiello 2017 #613}{Edjabou 2016 #430}. The 217
potato was suboptimal in appearance in that the shape was deformed, and the bread close to 218
expiration date or from the day before – depending on the custom for the location and country, 219
given there were differences in whether there is an expiry date on most bread, or the majority 220
of bread is sold on the day and in bake-off or fresh bread shelves.
221
The optimal and the suboptimal potato was presented with the same images in all countries and 222
for both the supermarket and the farmers’ market. For the bread, four images of breads were 223
shown together, spanning different types of breads. These were jointly presented in all 224
countries in order to represent the assortment of the bread category - a single bread image that 225
would have represented the most typical bread type in all countries was not possible due to 226
country differences in bread culture. The suboptimal variant of the breads was explained as 227
text, but with the same image. All suboptimal products were indicated to be reduced in price 228
by 50% (a reduction determined as being of frequent practice in stores according to previous 229
research, {Kulikovskaja 2017 #468}) compared to the ‘optimal’ food. All respondents where 230
shown an image of the suboptimal versus the optimal variant of the product.
231
2.2.2 Communication 232
The communication conditions were firstly, a control with no additional communication, 233
secondly, a communication underlining the customer benefit of budget saving (‘reduced item / 234
low price, save more!’), and thirdly, a communication emotionalising the choice and appealing 235
to the societal benefit of food waste avoidance (‘My shape might not be, but I taste perfect!’
236
12 and ‘Don’t make me go to food waste!’, for the fresh and packaged food, respectively). The 237
communicational texts were selected based on a previous study that had tested a range of such 238
messages study in the same set of countries {Hooge 2017 #8}.
239
The texts were chosen to either appeal to the self-centred motive of saving money, or to the 240
others-centred motive of avoiding food waste and taking pity of the sub-optimal food. The 241
communication appealing to the self-centred motive was the same for both product categories, 242
while the communication appealing to the others-centred was differently phrased for each 243
category, as the sub-optimality of shape is a characteristic of fresh product, but the sub- 244
optimality date of the packaged product. Thus, the phrasing had to differ in order to refer to the 245
sub-optimality and related food waste avoidance. For an example, see Figure 1.
246
Insert figure 1 here 247
2.2.3 Store type 248
Finally, the locations were described as being either a supermarket or a farmers’ market. An 249
image representing the location was included to support respondents in imagining the context 250
(see figure 1). The colour of the sign indicating the price-reduction as well as the sign showing 251
the message was chosen in accordance with the store type. Colours can have an impact on 252
consumer perception and reaction {Helmert 2017 #796}. However, in this case this choice was 253
done in order to increase the realistic representation of the store type and mimic the design of 254
stickers on suboptimal food reduced in price, as they are used in stores {Kulikovskaja 2017 255
#468}.
256 257
2.3 Survey measures 258
13 Respondents were presented with the optimal versus a price-reduced sub-optimal item 259
presented as images, and asked to indicate the likely choice of the suboptimal as percentage on 260
a 0-100% scale. Then, they assessed the quality of the suboptimal item compared to the optimal 261
on a range of quality dimensions, as well as overall {Oude Ophuis 1995 #2}{Grunert 2005 262
#1}. These measures served as dependent variables (see table 3).
263
Insert table 3 here 264
In the further survey, a number of psychographic variables as well as respondents’
265
sociodemographic characteristics were measured. Self-centred and others-centred value 266
orientations were measured by de Groot and Steg´s (2007) instrument of egoistic, altruistic, 267
and biospheric value orientations, but only using the first two dimensions. The measure thus 268
consisted of eight statements, four for each of the two dimensions. The possible answers 269
include -1 (opposed to my values); 0 (not important at all) to 7 (extremely important) {Groot 270
2007 #787}. Trust in the store was measured using the sub-dimension ‘perceived integrity and 271
benevolence’ of the overall trust measure towards commercial entities, consisting of four 272
statements {Lombart 2014 #361}. These items were measured on a 7-point disagree/agree 273
scale. The value and trust scales showed satisfactory or good reliability and were averaged to 274
compute an index (see table 4 an overview and description of the measures). As socio- 275
demographics, the variables gender, age in years, and education (binary, indicating high 276
education finalized yes/no) were included, and it was controlled for the country of study.
277
Insert table 4 here 278
279
2.4 Analysis 280
14 For comparing the effect of the experimental conditions, we used SPSS 24 and applied 281
ANOVA analysis with respective post-hoc test, as well as independent samples t-test for 282
subsequent comparisons.
283 284
3. Results 285
3.1 Likelihood of choice of suboptimal food 286
We calculated ANOVA with all main effects and two-way interaction for the dependent choice 287
likelihood, exploring the experimental conditions, the hypothesised consumer variables, as 288
well as controlled for country, gender, age, education, and perceived quality. In the final model 289
presented (see Table 5 and 6), only the main effects are shown given the interactions did not 290
prove to be significant. A ANOVA for each product category is shown, given category 291
differences emerged in the pattern of results.
292
Insert table 5 and 6 here 293
The results show that there is a significant main effect of communication. Choice likelihood 294
is significantly lower in the control group (M=44.4, SD=33.5 for fresh, M=49.8, SD=32.4 for 295
packaged product), compared to both the budget saving message (M=51.8, SD=31.2; M=53.2, 296
SD=32.8) and the emotional appeal (M=51.9, SD=32.0; M=56.5, SD=31.2). H1 is thus 297
confirmed. No significant interaction between value orientations of respondents and the type 298
of communication is found. Therefore, H2 is not confirmed.
299
However, a main effect of value orientations emerged. There is a main effect of expressing 300
self-centred values on choice for both product categories. The parameter estimates are 301
insignificant, but tend to show a negative direction for fresh but a positive direction for the 302
packaged product category. Only for the fresh product category, thus for potato, there is also a 303
15 main effect of expressing others-centred values, with a positive direction (B=2.000 (t=3.458), 304
p=.001).
305
The results further show that there is a significant main effect of store type, but only for the 306
packaged product category. For the packaged product, thus the bread, choice is more likely in 307
the supermarket condition (M=54.4, SD=32.7) than in the farmers market condition (M=51.9, 308
SD=31.7). Thus, H3 is disconfirmed, as the opposite is found. No significant interaction 309
between store type and trust reported for the respective store is observed. Thus, H4 is not 310
confirmed. However, there is a main effect of trust for the fresh product only, thus the potato, 311
with a positive direction (B=2.850 (t=4.248), p=.000).
312
In addition, the results show that there are country differences in choice likelihood. Inspecting 313
this further, it is observed that in the fresh product category, Swedish respondents were less 314
likely to choose the suboptimal product (with on average 38.0% compared to 49.8-56.6% in 315
the remaining countries), while in the packaged product category, Dutch respondents were least 316
likely to choose the suboptimal product (with on average 48.7%) and German respondents most 317
likely (with on average 57.3%). From among the sociodemographic variables, age emerges as 318
significant. With higher age, respondents were less likely to choose the suboptimal food item 319
(B=-.269 (t=-7.393), p=.000; across both categories). Finally and not surprisingly, perceived 320
quality of the respective item is of crucial influence, as the high partial eta-square value 321
indicates. With more positively assessed quality, respondents were more likely to state higher 322
choice likelihood for the suboptimal food (B=8.324 (t=24.519), p=.000; across both 323
categories).
324 325
3.2 Perceived quality of suboptimal food 326
16 To explore H5, the perceived quality dimensions were inspected for each product category, 327
comparing the effect of communication condition and store type. Inspecting the quality 328
dimensions per communication (see table 7), it can be seen that only for one dimension, a 329
significant difference is observed for both fresh and packaged suboptimal product: The price- 330
value relation is significantly higher in both communication conditions compared to the 331
control, for both fresh and packaged product. For the fresh suboptimal product, three further 332
quality dimensions are assessed more favourable when in a communication condition, and 333
these are appearance, taste, and freshness. The means shows a trend of the emotional 334
communication being assessed as most favourable.
335
Inspecting the quality dimensions per store type (see table 8), it can be seen that only for two 336
dimensions, a significant difference is observed for both fresh and packaged suboptimal 337
product: The taste and the healthiness quality dimensions are assessed more favourable when 338
in the farmer’s market condition. For the fresh product, again, all other quality dimensions - 339
with exception of appearance - are significantly more favourably assessed in the farmers 340
market: taste, convenience, production process, health, freshness, and price-value relation.
341
Based on these observations for both communication and store type, H5 can be confirmed for 342
a range of product quality dimensions, and in particular for the product category of a fresh 343
suboptimal food product.
344
Insert table 7 and 8 here 345
346
4. Discussion 347
The goal of the study was to assess the effect of different types of additional communication 348
and store type on likelihood of choice of suboptimal price-reduced food, for two different 349
product categories and exploring different consumer value orientations and trust towards the 350
17 store type. Further, the goal was to explore how different communication and store type context 351
might influence consumer’s subjective product quality perception across a variety of 352
dimensions of food quality. Results of this kind can contribute to improving strategies to tackle 353
food waste in food stores, in that they allow to derive recommendations for targeting the right 354
consumers. Findings provide insights into the ‘who, where and why’ of suboptimal food 355
choice.
356
The results show that the additional communication increased choice likelihood. The messages 357
chosen might have improved salience of the self-centred or others-centred motive, and the 358
effect was similar for both types of communications tested. Interestingly, previous similar 359
studies showed mixed results for the effect of such communication: a study in Denmark found 360
no effect for a food waste avoidance nor for a budget message, compared to the control with 361
only the price-reduction {Aschemann-Witzel 2018 #789}. However, the communication 362
messages and their presentation as on-pack stickers were already widely used in the country, 363
and the respondents knew which precise retailer they were imagining shopping in. Thus, the 364
high familiarity with the communication and store might have resulted in the textual variations 365
not making any additional difference to consumer´s likelihood of choice. Another study in 366
South America, though, did indeed find a differential effect of the communication, and here, 367
other than in the current study, the food waste avoidance message had a stronger effect than 368
the budget saving {Aschemann-Witzel 2018 #763}. It is unclear whether the fact that food 369
waste had been a topic of societal discussion in the European countries of study but not in 370
South America potentially created more attention and curiosity, or whether a cultural difference 371
is underlying this observation. That consumers react positively to the communication 372
associating the action with a cause of avoiding food waste, however, is in line with an earlier 373
study on expiration date-based pricing {Theotokis 2012 #359}.
374
18 Neither the store type of supermarket versus farmers market, nor whether the respondent in 375
question had high trust in the respective store format showed to have a strong impact on 376
likelihood of choice across the product categories. Previous research of a favourable image and 377
product quality expectation on farmers markets are confirmed, though {Yu 2017 #785}.
378
However, a product category difference becomes apparent for these two variables, as both store 379
type and trust is if relevance for only one, but not the other product category. The packaged 380
food is more likely chosen in the supermarket, while trust in the store is more important for the 381
fresh produce. This might be explained by the fact that the first is a staple food likely bought 382
in supermarkets or their bakeries or bake-off stations on a regular basis, thus a familiar action.
383
For the fresh suboptimal product, quality might be very much a question of credence quality 384
{Oude Ophuis 1995 #2}, and this would explain why the trust in the store format becomes 385
relatively more relevant. For the packaged suboptimal product, closeness to expiration date or 386
freshness of the packaged food is visible for respondents and thus a search quality {Oude 387
Ophuis 1995 #2}.
388
Even more product category differences emerge when inspecting the effect of the experimental 389
conditions on perceived quality dimensions. A differential effect is observed for the fresh 390
product in particular, both for communication and for store type. This might show that the 391
communication alleviates the perception of sub-optimality, and even enhances quality 392
perception, thus showing that consumers are either convinced of the argument, or subject to a 393
halo effect {Sörqvist 2015 #790}. To alleviate the potential negative effect of the price- 394
reduction by a cause-marketing related image is in fact, what the previous study by Theotokis 395
et al. (2012) suggested. The enhanced quality perception that this study finds might confirm 396
their assumption. That it ‘works’ more for the fresh produce might have a number of reasons 397
which can be speculated upon. One of these is that the sub-optimality can be more effectively 398
countered by the message, as it is a mere convenience, but not an inherent difference in quality 399
19 which is at stake. Another interesting explanation could be that the fresh produce lends itself 400
more to the emotional message. In fact, it is typically fruit and vegetable which are portrayed 401
in a emotionalising way and appealing to pity and care, in the cases of food waste avoidance 402
communications in the market {Aschemann-Witzel 2017 #380}.
403
As a limitation, it has to be noted that research with a certain product example as well as a 404
certain choice of communication is impacted by the specific product in question and the words 405
chosen. Thus, even though the choice of design was carefully considered, results have to be 406
interpreted with the exact context of study in mind. Further, the likelihood of choice is self- 407
reported and hypothetical, and the quality perception is only perceived and not experienced.
408 409
5. Conclusions and implications 410
The findings allow a number of conclusions, both across the two categories, and regarding 411
category differences. First and foremost, it can be concluded that accompanying the price- 412
reduction of suboptimal food in-store with a further communication can be expected to increase 413
likelihood of choice for sub-optimal food. Both types of benefits communicated in the message 414
appear equally effective, and the effect is independent from whether or not it matches with the 415
respective respondent’s value orientation.
416
Secondly, a pattern of difference emerges between the two categories, and these lead to the 417
conclusion that marketing efforts to support sales of suboptimal food are in particular merited 418
for suboptimal fresh products. This is based on a number of findings: Trust in the respective 419
location and that respondents more likely express others-centred values play a positive role for 420
choice when it is about fresh food. The communication – in particular the emotional one – 421
improved perception of a range of dimensions of quality for fresh suboptimal food, and 422
perception of a range of dimensions of quality for suboptimal food is more favourable at the 423
20 farmers market, in particular for fresh products. With regard to the store type, it thus appears 424
that the farmers market is more advantageous for promoting sales of suboptimal fresh food, 425
while communication efforts overall are more effective for fresh suboptimal products.
426
Thirdly, a range of findings emerge that show how those consumers are characterized who 427
more likely can be expected to choose suboptimal food: Consumers who assess perceived 428
quality of the suboptimal food as relative better and who are younger more likely stated they 429
would choose the suboptimal variant of the food.
430
As an implication, the results suggest that supporting the sales of price-reduced suboptimal 431
food with additional communication is an effective tool to increase sales in store or at the point 432
of sale. The pattern of category differences indicates that such efforts in promoting choice and 433
perception of suboptimal food is more effective when it comes to fresh produce. In addition, 434
the store format of the farmers market is particularly promising in this regard. Further, 435
supporting quality perception through marketing efforts overall is key. The likely target group 436
for suboptimal food products reduced in price is among the younger consumers. The study thus 437
shows that selling suboptimal food in store as a contribution to tackling food waste in the supply 438
chain can be effectively improved by additional communication, and by focusing efforts on 439
fresh fruit and vegetables.
440
21 Table 1. Sample and measure characterization per country
441
NL DE SE NO DK
Sample size (n) 623 621 620 625 609
Share of gender, female (%) 49.5 48.6 49.3 49.0 50.0
Age in years (mean /SD) 47.9 (16.5)
47.1 (14.7)
47.9 (16.2)
45.3 (15.2)
49.2 (16.5)
Education, higher (%) 35.5 24.3 33.1 57.6 54.0
Likelihood of choice (%) 49.3 54.7 45.5 53.9 52.9
Perceived quality ‘overall’ 4.89 5.01 4.75 4.84 4.68
Value orientation, self-centred 2.46 2.84 2.46 2.38 2.57 Value orientation, others-centred 4.80 4.91 5.15 5.25 4.96
Trust 4.91 4.98 4.50 4.52 4.28
Notes. NL = The Netherlands, DE = Germany, SE = Sweden, NO = Norway, DK = Denmark.
442
If not indicated otherwise, the mean is given for the psychographic variables.
443
22 Table 2. Experimental design
444
Control Price reduction communicated
Emotional message communicated
Fresh food
Supermarket n=259
Supermarket n=281
Supermarket n=264 Farmers market
n=251
Farmers market n=254
Farmers market n=258
Packaged food
Supermarket n=255
Supermarket n=257
Supermarket n=251 Farmers market
n=260
Farmers market n=253
Farmers market n=255
Notes. n = 3098.
445
23 Table 3. Measure and variable characterisation, likely choice and perceived quality 446
Variable Question / Item and scale Mean (SD)
Likelihood of choice
Likelihood of choice for the fresh product:
Imagine you are in/at [supermarket / farmers market].
You have potato on your shopping list. You see these products on the shelf. How likely will you choose the product below instead of above?
0% likely that I choose the product below - 100% likely that I choose the product below [slider scale]
49.4 (32.4) n=1567
Likelihood of choice for the packaged product:
Imagine you are in/at [supermarket / farmers market] at the bakery. You have bread on your shopping list. You see these products on the shelf. How likely will you choose the product below instead of above?
0% likely that I choose the product below - 100% likely that I choose the product below [slider scale]
53.1 (32.2) n=1531
Perceived quality
Compared to the product above, how do you assess or expect the quality of the product below to be, with regard to …?
… how well it looks
… how good it tastes
… how convenient it is for you to use
… the quality of its production process
… the healthiness of the product as such
… how fresh it is
… the price-value relation of the product
… taking everything together, its quality overall 1 = quality is clearly below
5 = quality is the same 9 = quality is clearly above
4.43 (1.68) 4.91 (1.49) 4.36 (1.79) 5.04 (1.32) 5.19 (1.21) 4.47 (1.73) 5.69 (1.98) 4.83 (1.57)
Notes. n = 3098.
447
24 Table 4. Measure and variable characterisation, value orientation and trust
448
Variable Question / Item and scale Mean (SD)
Value orientation:
Below we have enlisted a number of aspects that people value in life. We are interested in the values that are most important in your personal life. Therefore, please indicate for every value to what degree it is a guiding principle in your personal life.
The possible answers include -1 (opposed to my values);
0 (not important at all) to 7 (extremely important).
… self-centred
Control over others, dominance Material possessions, money The right to lead or command
Having an impact on people and events
2.54 (1.43) Cronbach alpha =.740
… others- centred
Equal opportunity for all A world free of war and conflict Correcting injustice, care for the weak Working for the welfare of others
5.01 (1.70) Cronbach alpha =.823
Trust: integrity and
benevolence sub-dimension
To what extent do you agree or disagree on these statements?
I think that [location name] is sincere and honest towards its consumers.
I think that [location name] is interested in its consumers.
[location name] regularly renews itself to meet the needs of its customers.
I think that [location name] tries to meet the expectations of its customers on an ongoing basis.
1 = strongly disagree 7 = strongly agree
4.68 (1.41) Cronbach alpha =.912
Notes. n = 3098.
449
25 Table 5. ANOVA results explaining choice likelihood for suboptimal fresh food
450
Independent variables F value p value Partial η2 Message (control vs price vs food waste) 6.616 .001 .008 Location (supermarket vs farmers market) .136 .713 .000
Country 14.323 .000 .036
Gender (female vs male) .249 .618 .000
Education (low vs high) .019 .889 .000
Age 48.613 .000 .030
Others-centred values 7.284 .007 .005
Trust in the location 7.309 .007 .005
Self-centred values 9.651 .002 .006
Perceived quality of the suboptimal food 325.714 .000 .174 Notes. n = 1564. ANOVA. R2 = .248 (adjusted: .242).
451 452
26 Table 6. ANOVA results explaining choice likelihood for suboptimal packaged food 453
Independent variables F value p value Partial η2 Message (control vs price vs food waste) 3.350 .035 .004 Location (supermarket vs farmers market) 5.141 .024 .003
Country 5.545 .000 .014
Gender (female vs male) .263 .608 .000
Education (low vs high) 1.010 .315 .001
Age 50.696 .000 .032
Others-centred values 2.909 .088 .002
Trust in the location .122 .727 .000
Self-centred values 5.956 .015 .004
Perceived quality of the suboptimal food 299.376 .000 .165 Notes. n = 1527. ANOVA. R2 = .200 (adjusted: .192). ANOVA.
454 455
27 Table 7. Influence of message on perceived quality dimensions of suboptimal food 456
Potato Bread
Perceived quality dimensions, mean
… how well it looks 3.82 c, 3.90 a,b, 4.16 a 4.87, 4.86, 5.00
… how good it tastes 5.13 c, 5.24 a,b, 5.38 a 4.51, 4.53, 4.64
… how convenient it is for you to use 3.70, 3.89, 3.79 4.96, 4.92, 4.97
… the quality of its production process 4.97, 4.98, 5.16 5.04, 4.99, 5.09
… the healthiness of the product as such 5.15, 5.21, 5.29 5.11, 5.09, 5.27
… how fresh it is 5.04 b, 5.04b, 5.29 a 3.71, 3.85, 3.82
… the price-value relation of the product 5.36 c, 5.68 a, 5.69 a 5.72 c, 5.70 a,b, 6.02 a Notes. Statistical test: One-way ANOVA (p < .001) with post-hoc Tukey test. Significant 457
mean differences between the control, the price, and the emotional message (with p <= .001) 458
are indicated by different superscript letters.
459
28 Table 8. Influence of store type on perceived quality dimensions of suboptimal food 460
Potato Bread
Perceived quality dimensions, mean
… how well it looks 3.94, 3.98 4.88, 4.94
… how good it tastes 5.19, 5.31** 4.48, 4.64*
… how convenient it is for you to use 3.71, 3.88* 4.90, 5.00
… the quality of its production process 4.94, 5.14** 5.01, 5.08
… the healthiness of the product as such 5.16, 5.27* 5.09, 5.23**
… how fresh it is 5.04, 5.21** 3.74, 3.85
… the price-value relation of the product 5.47, 5.69** 5.78, 5.85
Notes. Statistical test: Independent samples t-Test. Significant mean differences between the 461
supermarket versus the farmers market (with ** = p <= .05; * = p <= .10) are indicated.
462
29 Figure 1. Example of the presentation of the choice in the experimental survey
463
Notes. Example above from Norway, farmers market, bread category, message price 464
reduction, example below from Germany, supermarket, potato category, emotional message 465
466
30 References
467
Alexander, P., Brown, C., Arneth, A., Finnigan, J., Moran, D., Rounsevell, M.D.A., 2017.
468
Losses, inefficiencies and waste in the global food system. Agricultural systems 153, 190–
469
200.
470
Aschemann-Witzel, J., 2018. Consumer perception and preference for suboptimal food under 471
the emerging practice of expiration date based pricing in supermarkets. Food Quality and 472
Preference 63, 119–128.
473
Aschemann-Witzel, J., Giménez, A., Ares, G., 2018a. Consumer in-store choice of suboptimal 474
food to avoid food waste. The role of food category, communication and perception of 475
quality dimensions. Food Quality and Preference 68, 29–39.
476
Aschemann-Witzel, J., Giménez, A., Ares, G., 2018b. Convenience or price orientation?
477
Consumer characteristics influencing food waste behaviour in the context of an emerging 478
country and the impact on future sustainability of the global food sector. Global 479
Environmental Change 49, 85–94.
480
Aschemann-Witzel, J., Hooge, I. de, Amani, P., Bech-Larsen, T., Oostindjer, M., 2015.
481
Consumer-related food waste. Causes and potential for action. Sustainability 7, 6457–6477.
482
Aschemann-Witzel, J., Hooge, I.E. de, Rohm, H., Normann, A., Bossle, M.B., Grønhøj, A., 483
Oostindjer, M., 2017a. Key characteristics and success factors of supply chain initiatives 484
tackling consumer-related food waste – A multiple case study. Journal of Cleaner 485
Production 155, 33–45.
486
Aschemann-Witzel, J., Jensen, J.H., Jensen, M.H., Kulikovskaja, V., 2017b. Consumer 487
behaviour towards price-reduced suboptimal foods in the supermarket and the relation to 488
food waste in households. Appetite 116, 246–258.
489
Bellemare, M.F., Cakir, M., Peterson, H.H., Novak, L., Rudi, J., 2017. On the Measurement of 490
Food Waste. American Journal of Agricultural Economics.
491
Block, L.G., Keller, P.A., Vallen, B., Williamson, S., Birau, M.M., Grinstein, A., Haws, K.L., 492
LaBarge, M.C., Lamberton, C., Moore, E.S., Moscato, E.M., Reczek, R.W., Tangari, A.H., 493
2016. The Squander Sequence. Understanding Food Waste at Each Stage of the Consumer 494
Decision-Making Process. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 35, 292–304.
495
Caraher, M., Cavic, A., Garrone, P., Melacini, M., Perego, A., 2014. Surplus food recovery 496
and donation in Italy. The upstream process. British Food Journal 116, 1460–1477.
497
31 Chang, S.-H., Wang, K.-Y., 2014. Investigating the Antecedents and Consequences of an 498
Overall Store Price Image in Retail Settings. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 22, 499
299–314.
500
Cicatiello, C., Franco, S., Pancino, B., Blasi, E., Falasconi, L., 2017. The dark side of retail 501
food waste. Evidences from in-store data. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 125, 502
273–281.
503
Delley, M., Brunner, T.A., 2017. Foodwaste within Swiss households: A segmentation of the 504
population and suggestions for preventive measures. Resources, Conservation and 505
Recycling 122, 172–184.
506
Edjabou, M.E., Petersen, C., Scheutz, C., Astrup, T.F., 2016. Food waste from Danish 507
households: Generation and composition. Waste management (New York, N.Y.) 52, 256–
508
268.
509
Eriksson, M., Ghosh, R., Mattsson, L., Ismatov, A., 2017. Take-back agreements in the 510
perspective of food waste generation at the supplier-retailer interface. Resources, 511
Conservation and Recycling 122, 83–93.
512
Eriksson, M., Strid, I., Hansson, P.-A., 2012. Food losses in six Swedish retail stores. Wastage 513
of fruit and vegetables in relation to quantities delivered. Resources, Conservation and 514
Recycling 68, 14–20.
515
FAO, 2011. Global food losses and food waste - Extent, causes and prevention. Study 516
conducted for the International Congress SAVE FOOD! at Interpack2011 Düsseldorf,, 517
Germany. Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK), Gothenburg, Sweden, 518
FAO, Rome, Italy.
519
Feldmann, C., Hamm, U., 2015. Consumers’ perceptions and preferences for local food. A 520
review. Food Quality and Preference 40, 152–164.
521
Filimonau, V., Gherbin, A., 2017. An exploratory study of food waste management practices 522
in the UK grocery retail sector. Journal of Cleaner Production 167, 1184–1194.
523
Grainger, M.J., Aramyan, L., Logatcheva, K., Piras, S., Righi, S., Setti, M., Vittuari, M., 524
Stewart, G.B., 2018. The use of systems models to identify food waste drivers. Global Food 525
Security 16, 1–8.
526
Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J., Borin, N., 1998. The effect of store name, brand name and 527
price discounts on consumers' evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing 74, 528
331–352.
529
Groot, J.I.M. de, Steg, L., 2007. Value Orientations to Explain Beliefs Related to 530
Environmental Significant Behavior. Environment and Behavior 40, 330–354.
531
32 Gruber, V., Christina Holweg, Christoph Teller, 2016. What a Waste! Exploring the Human 532
Reality of Food Waste from the Store Manager's Perspective. Journal of Public Policy &
533
Marketing 35, 3.
534
Grunert, K.G., 2005. Food quality and safety. Consumer perception and demand. European 535
Review of Agricultural Economics 32, 369–391.
536
Grunert, K.G., 2019. International segmentation in the food domain. Issues and approaches.
537
Food Research International 115, 311–318.
538
Hartman, K.B., Spiro, R.L., 2005. Recapturing store image in customer-based store equity. A 539
construct conceptualization. Journal of Business Research 58, 1112–1120.
540
Hebrok, M., Boks, C., 2017. Household food waste: Drivers and potential intervention points 541
for design – An extensive review. Journal of Cleaner Production 151, 380–392.
542
Helmert, J.R., Symmank, C., Pannasch, S., Rohm, H., 2017. Have an eye on the buckled 543
cucumber. An eye tracking study on visually suboptimal foods. Food Quality and 544
Preference 60, 40–47.
545
Henz, G.P., Porpino, G., 2017. Food losses and waste. How Brazil is facing this global 546
challenge? Hortic. Bras. 35, 472–482.
547
Hooge, I.E. de, Oostindjer, M., Aschemann-Witzel, J., Normann, A., Loose, S.M., Almli, V.L., 548
2017. This apple is too ugly for me! Food Quality and Preference 56, 80–92.
549
Hooge, I.E. de, van Dulm, E., van Trijp, H.C.M., 2018. Cosmetic specifications in the food 550
waste issue. Supply chain considerations and practices concerning suboptimal food 551
products. Journal of Cleaner Production 183, 698–709.
552
Hughner, R.S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C.J., Stanton, J., 2007. Who are organic 553
food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. Journal 554
of Consumer Behaviour 6, 94–110.
555
Koivupuro, H.-K., Hartikainen, H., Silvennoinen, K., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Heikintalo, N., 556
Reinikainen, A., Jalkanen, L., 2012. Influence of socio-demographical, behavioural and 557
attitudinal factors on the amount of avoidable food waste generated in Finnish households.
558
International Journal of Consumer Studies 36, 183–191.
559
Kulikovskaja, V., Aschemann-Witzel, J., 2017. Food Waste Avoidance Actions in Food 560
Retailing: The Case of Denmark. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 561
1–18.
562
Kummu, M., Moel, H. de, Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., Ward, P.J., 2012. Lost food, 563
wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, 564
cropland, and fertiliser use. Science of The Total Environment 438, 477–489.
565
33 Loebnitz, N., Schuitema, G., Grunert, K.G., 2015. Who buys oddly shaped food and why?
566
Impacts of food shape abnormality and organic labeling on purchase intentions. Psychology 567
& Marketing 32, 408–421.
568
Lombart, C., Louis, D., 2014. A study of the impact of Corporate Social Responsibility and 569
price image on retailer personality and consumers' reactions (satisfaction, trust and loyalty 570
to the retailer). Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21, 630–642.
571
Mallinson, L.J., Russell, J.M., Barker, M.E., 2016. Attitudes and behaviour towards 572
convenience food and food waste in the United Kingdom. Appetite 103, 17–28.
573
Mendini, M., Peter, P.C., Gibbert, M., 2018. The dual-process model of similarity in cause- 574
related marketing. How taxonomic versus thematic partnerships reduce skepticism and 575
increase purchase willingness. Journal of Business Research 91, 195–204.
576
Nguyen, T.N., Lobo, A., Greenland, S., 2016. Pro-environmental purchase behaviour. The role 577
of consumers' biospheric values. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 33, 98–108.
578
O'Connor, E.L., Sims, L., White, K.M., 2017. Ethical food choices. Examining people’s Fair 579
Trade purchasing decisions. Food Quality and Preference 60, 105–112.
580
Oude Ophuis, P.A.M., van Trijp, H.C.M., 1995. Perceived quality: a market driven and 581
consumer oriented approach. Food Quality and Preference 6, 177–183.
582
Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., K. Steinberger, J., Wright, N., Ujang, Z.b., 2014. The food 583
waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. Journal 584
of Cleaner Production 76, 106–115.
585
Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., Macnaughton, S., 2010. Food waste within food supply chains:
586
quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal 587
Society B: Biological Sciences 365, 3065–3081.
588
Porpino, G., Parente, J., Wansink, B., 2015. Food waste paradox. Antecedents of food disposal 589
in low income households. International Journal of Consumer Studies 39, 619–629.
590
Priefer, C., Jörissen, J., Bräutigam, K.-R., 2016. Food waste prevention in Europe – A cause- 591
driven approach to identify the most relevant leverage points for action. Resources, 592
Conservation and Recycling 109, 155–165.
593
Quested, T.E., Marsh, E., Stunell, D., Parry, A.D., 2013. Spaghetti soup: The complex world 594
of food waste behaviours. SI: Resourceful Behaviours 79, 43–51.
595
Richter, B., Bokelmann, W., 2018. The significance of avoiding household food waste - A 596
means-end-chain approach. Waste management (New York, N.Y.) 74, 34–42.
597
